Well given that T20 isn't proper cricket & basically is the format that will be used to generate future income for the sport - and potentially attract other nations to the game. The substitute rule woule be perfect for this format.

Also, although i can see with those who believe the beauty of cricket is that its a "balanced team sport". Im quite sure if the rule wasn't so poorly structured by the ICC in the first place many people wouldn't have a problem today. Its not going into test cricket so no issue...

Don't really like the idea of bringing it back in. I'm a real fan of watching all-rounders, and this rule would mean you don't even have to play one.

The original idea was that it'd increase the presence of all-rounders due to the fact that people would realise using a specialist was a huge gamble on winning the toss.

The only way to stop it using all-rounders would be to name 12, toss, then name 11. That'd be the fairest way.

In any case, something that decreases the use of bits-and-pieces players and increases specialists is all good by me, and it's the only reason I was remotely in favour of the idea of subs. However, I'm perfectly happy without.